Asymptotic safety and the "no boundary" proposal

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the asymptotic safety approach to the "no boundary" proposal in quantum cosmology. Participants explore the theoretical implications and historical context of these concepts, as well as references to relevant literature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks papers that connect the asymptotic safety approach to the "no boundary" proposal, indicating a potential gap in existing literature.
  • Another participant clarifies the distinction between two interpretations of asymptotic safety: one related to Weinberg's nonperturbative renormalizability in gravity and the other concerning modern truncations of functional exact renormalization group equations.
  • A participant references Hawking's work, suggesting that the "no boundary" proposal is discussed in his writings, although they do not provide specific details.
  • Another participant cites specific pages from Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," noting collaborations with other physicists and mentioning a critique of the proposal by a student of Hawking.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the asymptotic safety approach and its relation to the "no boundary" proposal. There is no consensus on the specifics of the connection or the implications of the proposal.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the clarity of definitions and the assumptions underlying the asymptotic safety approach and the "no boundary" proposal. The historical context provided may not fully capture the nuances of the ongoing theoretical debates.

tom.stoer
Science Advisor
Messages
5,774
Reaction score
174
Does anybody know papers in which the asymptotic safety approach has been applied to the "no boundary" proposal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Tom,

It's a little difficult to know what you mean by this. First do you mean, asymptotic safety in the sense of Weinberg applied to gravity (eg nonperturbative renormalizability), or the modern program that takes truncations of the functional exact renormalization group equations (they are not necessarily the same thing, the second could be false but the first could be true).

Further, the no boundary proposal is usually formulated in the old approaches to quantum cosmology (really it's more about initial conditions in the minisuperspace approach to canonical quantum gravity) although it is often (not necessarily equivalently) formulated as a Euclidean path integral problem (where again the choice of the boundary conditions defines the proposal). Usually the assumption of semiclassical gravity is implicit, and it is rare that matter is included (it makes an already intractable calculation even more difficult), so its a little difficult to see what you mean.
 
Do you refer to the Hawking's proposition? If yes: he spoke of it in his book "a short story of..." (I don't remember which page but, at this page, he gave the name of some colleague he worked with about that topic). Sorry it is a little bit vague but I have no better hint.
 
In my English version of "A brief history of time" (A Bantam book - 1988 - 0 553 17521 1), you get interesting information page 144. Sir S. W. Hawking worked his "no boundary proposal" first at the University of California (Santa Barbara) with Jim Hartle and then in Cambridge with Julian Luttrel and Jonathan Halliwell. The implications of that proposal are again explored page 157; page 159, it is explained why and how a student of him (Raymond Laflamme) has prouved that that proposal was a mistake (disorder would continue to increase in contracting phases of the universe...). For more détails: see the book itself and Google the names of the authors cited here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K